New video has emerged on the eve of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings which shows Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan praising an Israeli activist judge as “my judicial hero,” underscoring Kagan’s alarming hostility to the Constitution and her views on empowering appointed judges with political agendas.

“The video provided to Whispers by Americans United for Life shows Kagan in 2006 praising retired Judge Aharon Barak during a ceremony at Harvard when she was dean of the Harvard Law School,” reports U.S. News and World Report.

During his stint as a judge on the Supreme Court of Israel from 1978-1995, Barak garnered a notorious reputation for pursuing an activist judge agenda. Reagan court pick Robert Bork labeled Barak “dangerous,” and “the worst judge on the planet,” adding that he led “the most activist court I have ever seen”.

According to a review of his tenure, “Under the leadership of Judge Barak, the Supreme Court significantly increased the [range of] fields in which it is [willing to intervene].”

In his 2006 book The Judge in a Democracy, Barak wrote that “a good judge is a judge who, within the bounds of legitimate possibilities, makes law that, more than other law he is authorized to make, best bridges the gap between law and society and best protects the constitution and its values. He also says that judges should go “beyond actually deciding the dispute.”

Watch the clip below.

All of this only adds to the case against Kagan in singling her out as the most unconstitutional Supreme Court pick ever.

Kagan has publicly expressed her hatred for the first amendment, stating that speech the government deems to be “offensive” should be ‘disappeared’.

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).

Under Kagan’s definition of the government’s role in policing free speech, the state would also have a remit to censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters. This is alarming given the fact that Obama’s information technology czar Cass Sunstein has called for the re-introduction of the “fairness doctrine,” which would also force political websites to carry mandatory government propaganda.

During the Citizens United vs. FEC case, Kagan’s office was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts if the government could ban publications it they were paid for by a corporation or labor union.

“If it’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘and so vote for x,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked, to which Kagan’s deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said the government could censor such information.

Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Kagan’s repulsive take on the rights enshrined in the Constitution is not just limited to free speech.

The Supreme Court nominee outlined her belief that Americans can be guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

Kagan is also hostile to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. She has habitually come down on the side of gun control in claiming the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and said that she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.

Despite accepting the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent on gun rights, Kagan added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.